You are on page 1of 36


Heidegger on Techno-Posthumanism

Revolt against Finitude? or, Doing What Comes “Naturally”?

Michael E. Zimmerman
University of Colorado at Boulder

“Man is God only to the extent that he transcends the

naturality and finitude of his spirit and elevates himself to
Hegel, Vorlesungen über
die Philosophie der Geschichte.

“ ‘Dead are all gods: now we want the Overman to live…’

Thus spoke Zarathustra.”
Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

“Only a god can save us now.”

Martin Heidegger, interview with Der Spiegel.

“So, does God exist? Well, I would say, not yet.”

Ray Kurzweil1

Transcendent Man, a film

The film begins with a voice-over in which a man describes a disturbing recurrent

dream. He is alone in a house with many empty rooms, suggested by blurry light and

dark images. This is what it means to be dead, concludes the speaker. This realization, so

he tells us, gives rise to such a “profoundly sad, lonely feeling, that I can’t bear it, so I go

back to thinking abut how I’m not going to die.” Advancing technology, so speaker

hopes, let him live far longer than ever before possible, possibly long enough to upload

his consciousness into an advanced computer that will make him virtually immortal. By

mid-century, he tells us, humans will merge with artificial intelligence that will be

billions of times smarter than ordinary humans. A crucial outcome of this event, which he

and some others call the Singularity, will be making the entire universe—including all its

dumb matter—conscious, perhaps billions of years from now. Later in the film, the same

man enters a warehouse room packed with his late father’s memorabilia, music scores,

recordings, diaries, financial records, photographs, and many other personal items.

Using this collection, the man intends to recreate a version of his father when it becomes

technically possible to do so.

The film under discussion is Transcendent Man: The Life and Ideas of Ray

Kurzweil (Ptolemy, 2009). Here and in his bestselling books, such as The Singularity Is

Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Kurzweil, 2006), Kurzweil envisions for

humankind and its artificial progeny powers and possibilities that were traditionally

accorded only to a deity: virtual immortality, omniscience, mastery over nature, capacity

to infuse everything with profoundly interconnected intelligence, and even the power to

bring the dead back to life.2

Kurzweil’s controversial views have become influential in part because he is such

a brilliant inventor, targeting his products for that point in the future when they will not

only be wanted and needed, but also supported by the technological infrastructure.

According to Kurzweil, science and technology are turning out findings—especially in

the areas of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, nanotechnology, and robotics—at an

exponential rate, which he calls “the law of accelerating returns.” (Kurzweil, 2006) If his

projections are right, and his track record is impressive, these discoveries and their

applications will dramatically transform humankind and human culture. In coming

decades humans will become ever more proficient cyborgs, retrofitting and redesigning

themselves with a cascade of scientific, medical, and technological breakthroughs. In


December 2012 Kurzweil became director of engineering at Google, which has the

computing power needed to advance his major ambition: to create AI, which will help to

make human immortality possible.

Enhancing the human is the central goal of transhumanism or transitional

humanism. In the not too distant future, so we are told, transhumans will merge with

super AI, which may evoke from ordinary humans the awe formerly associated with

encountering the gods. Developing super AI the goal of techno-posthumanism, which is

promoted by Kurzweil and a growing number of others. This form of posthumanism

points to something very different than the philosophical-literary posthumanism

developed by thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault.3

In recent years, I have regularly taught a course focused on philosophy and

science fiction in which many of the novels and films I wish to address in this study have

appeared. Many contemporary philosophers have engaged in discussing films such as The

Matrix, not only because such films push to the limit issues about subjectivity, morality,

and the status of “reality,” but also because make visible a range of possible future

worlds, both utopian and dystopian. Techno-science is an exceptionally powerful way of

comprehending and deploying the forces of nature. While science fiction has been

influenced by philosophical disputes about different genealogies of modernity and about

different meanings of the “posthuman,” science fiction also invites contemporary

philosophers, scientists, and engineers to engage far more seriously than before the issues

raised by a dizzying variety of futures, for the posthuman as well as for the human. (See

Geraci 2010)

Critics dismiss transhumanism as merely offering a technologically transformed


and positive version of the eugenics employed by Nazi Germany, whereas a number of

engineers and scientists sympathetically engage transhumanism’s vision of the coming

posthuman age.4 Despite legitimate concerns, the creation of advanced cyborgs and super

AI may be inevitable. Surely, then, it is in our interest not only to locate, analyze, and

evaluate the transformative ideas that dream such beings into existence, but will also to

inform ourselves about the possible the behavior and intentions of such beings. The

possibility that super AI poses an existential risk to humanity’s future can no longer be

consigned to the realm of science fiction, but instead must now be taken seriously.5 (See

Hawking et al. 2014)

Kurzweil claims that super AI will emerge in the year 2045. Even if that deadline

is not met, rapid technical progress will continue unless the global economy melts down,

or unless humankind is annihilated by a cosmic accident, including a collision with a

large-enough meteor. In the meantime, techno-posthumanists plan to invent super AI that

will escape from planet Earth altogether and seek its destiny in the stars. In this manner,

self-conscious beings--which may be rare even in our vast universe--will survive the

possible destruction of the biosphere. Humans will become or create the masters and

possessors of nature, so techno-posthumanists aver, even though the attempt to do so may

pose significant risks for humankind.

A central motivation for transhumanism and techno-posthumanism is to avoid

death. While the ancients sought the mythical tree of life, early modern alchemists hoped

to attain the elixir of life by transmutation of the elements and corresponding

transformation the soul. Many transhumanists, including Kurzweil and Aubrey de Gray,

believe that this dream can finally be realized, given rapid techno-scientific innovation.

(De Grey 2008) As we drill down to the very substructures of matter, energy, and life, the

prospect grows that humans can a) construct life, b) extend life, perhaps indefinitely; and

c) create a new, non-carbon-based form of life, endowed with artificial intelligence (AI)

that will bring about the Singularity. This term names that rupture in human and

terrestrial history that would occur when and if AI becomes self-conscious and

autonomous. At that moment, so we hear, AI will begin to redesign itself so such that

within a relatively short time AI will be billions of times more intelligent than human

beings. Something of the human will somehow be included in such AI, but ultimately it

will leave us far behind. At least, so goes the optimistic story of many techno-

posthumanists. (Kurzweil 2006)

The prospect of realizing such visions motivates many high tech gurus. Some of

the profits from our slick digital gadgets finance various aspects of research on AI. In

2012 Google named as its chief engineer, Ray Kurzweil, who has always regarded

creating AI as his highest ambition. Other high tech leaders, such as virtual-reality

pioneer Jaron Lanier, explore the possible motives for creating new forms of autonomous

and highly intelligent life. In a New York Times op-ed (2010) Lanier wrote:

[C]omputer scientists are human, and are as terrified by the human

condition as anyone else. We, the technical elite, seek some way of

thinking that gives us an answer to death, for instance. This helps explain

the allure of a place like the Singularity University. The influential

Silicon Valley institution preaches a story that goes like this: one day in

the not-so-distant future, the Internet will suddenly coalesce into a super-

intelligent A.I., infinitely smarter than any of us individually and all of


us combined; it will become alive in the blink of an eye, and take over

the world before humans even realize what’s happening. [….]

Yes, this sounds like many different science fiction movies. Yes, it

sounds nutty when stated so bluntly. But these are ideas with tremendous

currency in Silicon Valley; these are guiding principles, not just

amusements, for many of the most influential technologists. [My

emphasis.] (Lanier 2010)

Heidegger on Techno-Posthumanism

How can Heidegger’s thought shed light on the astonishing vision proposed by

techno-posthumanism? Insofar as humankind is increasingly understood from the vantage

point of techno-science, that is, as highly complex matter-energy that can at first be

emulated and then dramatically enhanced, Heidegger would say that techno-

posthumanism is the latest and perhaps most dangerous phase in the era of techno-

industrial nihilism. In this era, all beings--including human beings--reveal themselves

primarily as raw material for the purpose of enhancing power for its own sake, not for the

sake of some identifiable human end. Although techno-posthumanists would disagree

with Heidegger’s view of modern technology (Technik) as the culmination of Western

nihilism, they would agree with his supposition that super AI would continually enhance

itself, becoming ever more powerful, perhaps as an end in itself. Super AI would be, in

effect, the ultimate ontical embodiment of what Heidegger--drawing on Nietzsche--calls

the Will to Will.6


From Heidegger’s viewpoint, techno-posthumanism is a new chapter in

modernity’s revolt against finitude, its concomitant desire to become God-like, and its

effort to make the rationality of the “rational animal” the very ground of beings.

Heidegger maintains, however, that what is essential to humankind is not rationality, but

rather the “clearing” (die Lichtung) that allows beings to manifest themselves--and thus

“to be”--in their intelligibility. Arguably, the clearing is Heidegger’s main philosophical

topic. (Sheehan 2014) Synonyms for the “clearing” include the world (die Welt) the

nothing (das Nichts), and “the appropriation” (das Ereignis). Although nowhere offering

an account of how this clearing occurred in the first place--indeed, it would seem

impossible to do so--, Heidegger’s attitude toward it is one of profound reverence and

appreciation. When he talks about techno-industrial nihilism that culminates the history

of metaphysics, he means that modern humankind is oblivious to the nothing, das Nichts,

or the clearing. Thus oblivious, humankind fails to appreciate its radical dependence on

the clearing, which allows access to the Being of beings, and thus to our own mode of


According to Heidegger, humankind is “thrown” into this clearing, appropriated

by it, as the site needed for humans to encounter beings as beings, that is, as things that

are. The clearing is not a possession of humankind; instead, humankind exists in its

service. In his famous “Letter on Humanism,” published shortly after the end of World

War II, Heidegger contrasted his view with humanism, which has evolved to the point

that humans regard themselves as potential masters over the whole of beings:

The essence of man, however, consists in his being more than merely
human, if this is represented s “being a rational creature.” More must not
be understood here additively, as if the traditional definition of man were

indeed to remain basic, only elaborated…. The “more” means: more

originally and therefore more essentially in terms of his essence. But
here something enigmatic manifests itself: man is in thrownness. This
means that man, as the ek-sisting counter-throw of Being, is more than
animal rationale precisely to the extent that he is less bound up with man
conceived from subjectivity. Man is not the lord of beings. Man is the
shepherd of Being… Man is the neighbor of Being. (Heidegger 1977,
221 [Heidegger 1967bb, 172])

The clearing makes possible human finitude, mortality, and receptivity, thereby

allowing us to be affected in ways that lets things matter to us. The human mode of Being

is care (Sorge), without which sheer rationality is without meaning and purpose. In

Heidegger’s view, power-seeking and death-denying modernity threatens to close off the

clearing, which has already become so constricted that today beings--including human

beings--can show up primarily as flexible raw material. Like anything else, humans can

now be ordered and exploited by cybernetics, which seems to be late Heidegger’s

operational term for “enframing” (Gestell), a key term for his view of modern

technology. (See Heidegger 1977b (Heidegger 1954a])

Human Dasein, according to Heidegger, is doubly finite. Not only are we

dependent on beings (food, clothing, shelter) for survival, but also we are dependent for

our very mode of being on the clearing that owns us. Human Dasein exists as--or perhaps

better--within the temporal-historical clearing needed for the self-showing, that is, the

Being of beings (Sein des Seiendes) to occur. (In what follows, I capitalize Being to

distinguish it from beings.) The clearing, instantiated through humankind, allows us to

encounter beings--through perception, understanding, and utilization--in a host of

different ways. Human praxis plays a crucial role in disclosing things, but such disclosive

activity always takes place within the clearing into which (and as which) humans have

always already been thrown, and thus over which they exercise no control. Beings

depend on the humanized clearing as the site in which to reveal themselves and also to be

revealed or brought out of concealment by human language and techne (technical know-

how). No subjective idealist, Heidegger insisted that natural beings manifest themselves

as always already there, prior to our encountering, perceiving, and interpreting them. We

do not create the natural phenomena that encounter us, but depend on them for our

continued existence.

What Heidegger might have called the ontological Singularity refers he

astonishing fact that beings appear as beings, that there is something rather than nothing,

and that this something manifests within the clearing constituting human existence. The

thinker and the poet may notice this extraordinary event, but most people never do.7 In

any possible experience, what show up are beings in their Being, that is, their self-

manifesting. Our capacity for understanding the Being of beings allows us access to

them. What allows for the self-showing is named the clearing, but this always goes

unnoticed. Metaphysics studies the Being of beings, but not das Nichts that allows for

beings to show up and thus “to be.” Overlooking the clearing is not any human failing;

instead, Heidegger says, the clearing conceals itself. According to Heidegger, this self-

concealment--which initiated the 2500 year-long metaphysical tradition--culminates in

techno-industrial nihilism.

Plato initiated the metaphysical tradition by defining Being as eidos, the

permanently present (eternal) form that reason alone can discern. Missing was any

reference to the clearing within which such presencing (eidos) could occur. For

metaphysics Being names the foundation and origin of beings, that which allows them to

endure, that which forms and structures them so that they persist. Gradually, humankind

increasingly came to define itself as the rational animal, and conceived of rationality as

the ground or foundation of beings. Not surprisingly, beings increasingly revealed

themselves first as objects for the rational subject, and eventually as raw material over

which technical mastery could be achieved. The consummation (Vollendung) of Western

metaphysics is achieved in Nietzsche’s doctrine of the Will to Power. “Consummation,”

so Heidegger writes, “means the unimpeded development of all the essential powers of

beings, powers that have been reserved for a long time, to what they demand as a whole.’

(Heidegger, 1987, 7 [Heidegger, 1989, 7]) (My emphasis.) Properly understood,

according to Heidegger, the essence of Will is always to transcend its current stage of

power in order to attain a higher stage. Power means the drive to attain something more,

as in non-stop progress, the ever more elaborate techno-industrial ordering and

organization of beings. Rightly understood, the Will to Power means the Will to Will.

Although humankind is not in control of the self-concealment of the clearing on

which humankind depends, Heidegger sometimes talks as if humankind revolts against

finite receptivity (the clearing) by asserting that the rational human animal is the ground

(Being) of beings, and thus the master and the possessor of nature. All this sounds to

Heidegger like ontological blasphemy. While modern metaphysical humanism promises

and increasingly delivers material well being for many, humanism arises from the self-

concealment of the clearing that allows us to encounter beings as beings in the first place.

The quest for infinite power, the Will to Will, increasingly forecloses the finite

receptivity that makes us specifically human. Indeed, in the technological era humankind

itself is no longer a rational subject standing over against a totality of objects, but instead

has become the most important raw material, useful for enhancing the endless growth of

power for its own sake. Hence, the era of techno-industrial nihilism leads not only to

world wars and nuclear weapons, but also to the exponential growth of AI and related

high-tech fields. Heidegger suggests that several centuries will probably unfold in

accordance with “machination,” the reducing of all beings to fungible raw material, as

demanded by what Nietzsche called the Will to Power.

The metaphysics of the Will to Power is discernible in Kurzweil’s prediction that

the first thing an artificially intelligent computer will do is to redesign itself, so that it can

become far more intelligent than all human beings collectively. If Heidegger is right,

humankind--a crucial factor in the techno-industrial system--constitutes both the current

preservation condition, and also the enhancement condition needed to bring forth the next

stage of the Will to Power: techno-posthumans. After the Singularity, AI itself will

become the preservation condition needed for producing the next and more powerful

stage of AI, that is, super AI. Everything becomes a means to another end, which in turn

becomes yet another means. There will be only the bad infinity of endless striving, unless

super AI develops ends of a sort that we cannot yet fathom--unless AI remains finite in a

way that allows things to matter to it. I will have more to say about this later.

According to Heidegger, even though humans may think themselves to be in

charge of techno-science, in fact we are servants of the technological juggernaut.

Technology is no longer a means to human ends, but rather an end in itself. In1968, he


…the conspicuous successes of the inexorable development of technicity

continue to give the appearance that the human being is the master of

technicity. In truth, however, he is the servant of the power that

thoroughly dominates all technical production. The power of the

challenging placing [das Gestell] shapes the human being into the mortal

who is claimed, placed, and in this sense, used by this power and for it.

The prevailing power in the presence of what-is-present needs the human

being. (Heidegger 2010, 218 [Heidegger 2000, 627])

Heidegger holds out the possibility that technological nihilism might be overcome

by “another beginning,” given that the current disclosure of beings as raw material brings

to a culmination the first beginning initiated by the ancient Greeks. Thomas Sheehan

forcefully contends, however, that another beginning is ruled out by Heidegger’s own

conception of the interplay of being (presencing) and clearing (absencing) that allows

human access to beings in the first place. For an entity “to be” means for it to reveal itself

in its intelligibility within the clearing opened up through human beings. In apprehending

this intelligibility, human Dasein lets beings be. If Sheehan is right, human Dasein is

inevitably fascinated with and drawn toward beings. We are “fallen” into the world of

things.8 In seeking mastery over them, we are just doing what comes naturally, as it were.

Indeed, beings seemingly invite us investigate, appreciate, and also to exploit them for

purposes of our own. Even perception (Wahr-nemung) is form of grasping that arises and

cooperates with the showing up (Being) of beings. Grasping is a way of bringing to a

stand the overwhelming surge of beings. Bringing beings to a stand, by understanding,

perceiving, and manipulating them, allows beings to be what they are. Heidegger writes:

[B]eings as such open themselves only to such a perceiving. This is what

Parmenides’ saying means: To gar auto noein estin te kai einai.

“Perceiving and Being are the same.” To be the same means to belong

together in essence; beings are not in being as beings, that is, s present,

without perceiving. But neither can perceiving take hold where there are

no beings, where Being does not have the possibility of coming into the

open. (Heidegger 1987, 48 [Heidegger 1989a, 93-94])9

The techno-industrial era’s “industrial ontology,” (Wilber 1995) to which

corresponds what Herbert Marcuse called “one-dimensional man” (Marcuse 1964), is a

highly efficient, but also a highly restricted ways of “perceiving” beings.10 If techno-

posthumanists assume that we are making strides toward creating God-like beings,

Heidegger would caution that these “strides” are in fact making us into what Michel

Foucault called the biopower needed to carry out the destiny of techno-industrial mode of

disclosing beings. In coming decades, so Heidegger surmised, the Will to Power will

allow and even demand that humans generate what today is depicted as autonomous,

super AI. As Richard Polt has made clear, Heidegger’s late reflections on cybernetics

were prescient. He sensed the “draw” (Zug) of the hyper-technological future, even if

details about it were lacking. Ever more incredible innovations, arising at an ever-

increasing tempo, will make possible undreamt of powers. We may well create God-like

beings, and we will seem like gods to ourselves, insofar as we created such beings.

Despite the quote at the beginning of this essay, however, even Kurzweil agrees that

humans cannot become what the Bible understands by “God.”


Preparing the Humans Needed to Take Command of the Planet

Heidegger’s view of modern technology was profoundly influenced in the early

1930s by his encounter with Ernst Jünger’s writings, which were informed by an

innovative (even if philosophically limited) interpretation of Nietzsche. (Heidegger 2004;

Zimmerman 1992) In the 1920s, most notably in Being and Time (Sein und Zeit),

Heidegger indicated that beings primarily reveal themselves as ready-to-hand (zuhanden),

that is, as always already involved with human productive activity undertaken with tools,

whether in the workshop or in the field. The south wind, for example, reveals itself as

oncoming rain needed for crops. Already, some say, Heidegger viewed nature primarily

in terms of its use-value for humankind. After reading Jünger, Heidegger would conclude

that modern technology discloses everything--including humankind itself--as raw

material for enhancing power.

Informed by his heralded front-experience in World War I and on his study of

Nietzsche’s work, Jünger argued that technologically enhanced warfare heralded the rise

of a new human Typus, stamped by the Gestalt of the worker-soldier. This Gestalt is the

latest historical configuration of what Nietzsche called the Will to Power. (Jünger 2013

[1932]) Jünger’s riveting literary accounts of the melding of cold steel and hot flesh, that

is, the technological transformation of the human organism, struck Heidegger like a

thunderbolt. Much of his subsequent philosophical research involved interpreting the

essence of modern technology as the disclosure of all beings as resources for the Will to

Will. Heidegger writes:

The basic form of appearance in which the Will to Will arranges and

calculates itself in the unhistorical element of the world of completed


metaphysics can be stringently called ‘technology.’ This name includes

all the areas of beings that equip the whole of beings: objectified nature,

the business of culture, manufactured politics, and the gloss of ideals

overlying everything. Thus ‘technology’ does not signify here the

separate areas of the production and equipment of machines….

(Heidegger 1972, 93 [Heidegger 1954, 72])

The technological-industrial, cybernetic era results from what Heidegger calls

“the self-release of being into machination. This release takes man into unconditional

service. It is by no means a decline and something ‘negative’ in any kind of sense.”

(Heidegger 1972, 103 [Heidegger 1954, 82-83]) In many other places, however,

Heidegger speaks negatively about what has become of humankind in the technological

era. For instance, in Contributions to Philosophy, written in the mid-1930s, he says that

modern humans have become “hexed” and “bewitched” by beings.

We are used to calling the era of “civilization” the one that has

dispelled all bewitchery, and this dispelling seems more probable--

indeed, uniquely--connected to complete unquestionableness. Yet is just

the reverse. We merely need to now where the bewitchery comes from,

namely, from the unbridled dominance of machination. When

machination attains ultimate dominance, when it pervades everything,

then there are no more circumstances whereby the bewitchery can be

sensed explicitly and resisted. The hex cast by technology and by its

constantly self-surpassing progress is only one sign of this bewitchery

that directs everything toward calculation, utility, breeding,


manageability, and regulation. (Heidegger 2012, 98 [Heidegger, 1989b,


In other words, what Max Weber famously called the “disenchantment” of the

world is merely a transition to a mode of betwitchment far more comprehensive than any

sorcerer or alchemist could have imagined. Heidegger’s mention of bewitchment may be

a nod to the role played by the magus not only in esoteric traditions like Hermeticism, but

also in the rise of modern science and in the work of philosophers like Hegel, and by

extension Marx. As Nietzsche once put it:

Preludes of science--Do you really believe that the sciences would ever

have originated and grown if the way had not been prepared by

magicians, alchemists, astrologers, and witches whose promises and

pretensions first had to create a thirst, a hunger, a taste for hidden and

forbidden powers?11 (Nietzsche 1974, §300, 240)

Heidegger anticipated that Nietzsche’s discourse would figure prominently in

transhumanism. Transhumanists often cite Zarathustra’s provocative claim that the

human is a mere bridge between the ape and the Overman. Zarathustra’s discourse offers

intellectual panache to the ambitious projects of transhumanists, many of whom are

atheistic humanists. (Zimmerman 2011) Although only infrequently referring to

Zarathustra, and ignoring altogether the fact that Zarathustra emphasized the importance

of “dying at the right time” rather than yearning for immortality, Kurzweil takes seriously

Zarathustra’s pronouncement about the death of God. Comprehending the importance of

a new highest goal for humankind, Kurzweil proposes that humankind aim to generate

God-like progeny, the emergence of which will anoint us retrospectively as creators akin

to the Biblical God. (See Zimmerman 2008) The Singularity parallels in some ways,

without thereby being identical with what Christians regard as the Millennium. (Geraci


Interpreting Nietzsche’s thought as ushering in techno-industrial nihilism,

Heidegger describes the Overman as what humankind must become in order to serve

machination, the techno-industrial mode of Being. The Overman, then, is not a great

individual, but rather the transformed humankind necessary to take command of the


[N]ot just any kind of humanity is suited to bring about

unconditional nihilism in a historical manner. Hence a struggle is even

necessary about the decision as to which kind of humanity is capable of

the unconditional completion of nihilism. (Heidegger 1972, 103

[Heidegger 1954, 83])

During World War II, in an era which certainly seemed to be governed by the

Gestalt of the worker, political regimes arose to enhance industrial output in the mode of

“total mobilization.” Hitler, Stalin, and (Heidegger would add) Roosevelt were fearless

leaders evoked by the Will to Power. Infamous examples of efforts to generate the new

kind of humanity needed for dominion over the Earth are found in the “new Socialist

Man” and the “new National Socialist Man,” versions of what Jünger had in mind by “the

worker” (der Arbeiter). (Glatzer 2002, Cheng 2008) During World War II Heidegger

wrote: “Since man is the most important raw material, one can reckon with the fact that

some day factories will be built for the artificial breeding of human material, based on

present-day chemical research.” (Heidegger 1972, 106 [Heidegger 1954, 87]). Despite its

devastation, World War II was only the prelude to ever more titanic efforts to control and

exploit beings, including human beings.

In the postwar era, Heidegger concluded that what Norbert Wiener called

cybernetics was the step that would lead beyond the industrial era to what we now call

the “age of information,” which will further the endless process of planetary (and perhaps

cosmic) exploitation. Humans are already subjected to the same kinds of control that

cybernetics imposes on all other things and systems. The rise of cybernetics indicates,

however, that the human era is coming to an end. Transhumanism aims to enhance the

human organism, but eventually even enhanced transitional humans will be eclipsed by

super AI, which will be far more efficient and ever more powerful.

The enormous investment in weapons research during the Cold War continues in

the US today, under the leadership of organizations such as DARPA (Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency). DARPA recently announced that it “has created a division

that merges biology, engineering, and computer science to advance technologies for

national security.” (Malykhina 2014) Working closely with private corporations in the

fields of biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotics, and AI, DARPA recognizes that the

organic human platform is far too limited (finite) to take advantage of the military power-

possibilities now coming into view.

Naturalizing Heidegger:

Could the Clearing Ever Occur Again, this Time in Super AI?

So far, we have seen that Heidegger would regard the rise of super AI as the latest

phase in techno-industrial nihilism, which arises due to the self-concealment of the

clearing that allows humans to encounter beings. In what follows, I pose and offer a

tentative answer to this question: What if super AI itself, rather than signifying the

closing off of the original clearing, were associated with the emergence of a new clearing,

one consistent with its own possibilities? Before turning to this question, we need to

discuss how people like Kurzweil understand AI.

First, Kurzweil does not employ the vocabulary of “clearing” or “openness for

Being.” Instead, he speaks first of intelligence, and second of consciousness. In some

sense, even our smart phones are already “intelligent,” in that they can exhibit

computational activity that far exceeds what any individual person can do. By AI,

however, most people--including Kurzweil--means not merely computational

intelligence, but self-conscious intelligence. No one knows whether AI, if it ever occurs,

would be conscious in any way that we recognize. Kurzweil, who admits that

consciousness remains unexplained, posits that it is correlated with the enormously

complex, hierarchical structure of the brain.12 According to him, humans can understand

what and how beings are because: a) aspects of them are accessible to human sensation

and perception, and b) rational analysis can interpret and utilize beings that are accessible

in that way. There is no discourse here about any sort of “clearing.” Nevertheless, we

may ask whether there could (unexpectedly) arise within AI a version of openness

commensurate with AI.

In lectures from 1929-30, Heidegger acknowledged that animals live within their

own worlds, which grant very limited access to beings. Humankind, however, exists in a

richer if still finite world, one that allows much greater access to the Being of beings.

(Heidegger 1995 [Heidegger 1983]) Although at one time exploring the proximity

between the human and the animal, Heidegger later claimed that an abyss separate the

human from the animal. (Heidegger 1977, 206 [Heidegger 1967bb, 157) One motive for

this shift was his conclusion that Aristotle’s conception of the human as the rational

animal eventually led to Nietzsche’s metaphysics of the Will to Power. Anticipating what

would become “social Darwinism,” Nietzsche spoke approvingly of improving

humankind by breeding. Another motive was that conceiving of humans as clever

animals forecloses appreciation of their finite openness granted by the clearing.

How did the clearing, arise in the first place? Bernard Stiegler’s three-volume

work, Technics and Time attempts to answer this question, by arguing that humankind

and technics are always already intertwined. (Stiegler, 1998, 2009, 2010) Reversing

Heidegger’s interpretation, Stiegler maintains that technics, not temporality, forms the

horizon (thus the clearing) of human possibility. Indeed, because technics creates

temporality, historical transcendence always depends on empirical (technical)

circumstances. Stiegler recalls Friedrich Engels’ insistence that the opposed thumb

allowed humans to manipulate their environment in a way crucial for the formation of

intelligence. Unlike Heidegger, who discounted the possibility that sciences such as

archeology and anthropology could provide insight into human origins, that is, the origins

of the clearing, Stiegler relies on scientific research into how tool-use and the human

arose together. Even he concedes, however, that this arising-together constitutes an

aporia. Did the human bring about tools, or did the tools bring about the human?

Notably, as have other thinkers in the past when confronted with such an aporia, Stiegler

appeals to a myth, that of Epimetheus, to help shed light on the technics-human


Heidegger resisted exploring archeological/anthropological contributions to


understanding human origins in part because he lived during an era of positivism,

behaviorism, and eliminative materialism, none of which were friendly to discourse about

subjectivity and consciousness, much less to talk about the clearing. Since then, however,

three important conceptual developments have occurred. The first two are Big Bang

cosmology and quantum physics. The former has made possible cosmic grand narratives.

One such narrative, associated with the Anthropic Principle, states that life (including

self-conscious life) could not have evolved without the exquisite “fine-tuning” of crucial

natural constants. (Barrow and Tipler 1988) Moreover, many quantum physicists

emphasize that consciousness is inextricably involved in the quantum activity constitutive

of physical phenomena. (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2011) In view of such conceptual

developments, some people argue that the emergence of human consciousness is not only

a possible, but also perhaps a necessary feature of the universe. Humankind is required so

that the universe can reveal itself to itself in its various ways. (Davies 2008; Swimme and

Tucker 2011; McIntosh 2012) Proponents of techno-posthumanism would argue that the

emergence of self-conscious life has cosmic significance not merely because of what has

already occurred (the rise of self-conscious life), but also because of what is still to come.

These new, science-derived narratives often dovetail with the third above-

mentioned development, namely, the reassertion of consciousness as an important aspect

of philosophy of mind. It may seem obvious that--in addition to psychology and

neurophysiology--philosophy of mind requires both a description (phenomenology) of

first-person experience as well as an account of the conditions necessary for the

possibility of such experience. Such was not the case until fairly recently, however, when

behaviorism’s predominance in social science ebbed. An important intervention was


David J. Chalmers’ book, The Conscious Mind. (Chalmers 1996; see also Chalmers

2010) In exploring what he calls “the hard problem” of consciousness, Chalmers argues

that consciousness is both a correlate of complex material configurations, but also a basic

cosmic constituent, along with space, time, matter, and energy. According to this

viewpoint, subjective consciousness is a late development of what begins as the barest of

affectivity, the capacity of beings in some sense take into account their environment. The

capacity for taking-into-account can be so meager that it may go “all the way down,”

perhaps to the atomic level and even below, as suggested by Alfred North Whitehead’s

panpsychism. Chalmers proposes that this affective capacity eventually evolved into

sensation, then into gradations of consciousness, and finally into human self-


If we were willing to interpret primal affectivity as the seed that would eventually

flower as human finitude, we could perhaps depict humankind as a remarkable

development within cosmic evolutionary history, rather than as something extra-cosmic.

Defending this view is the burden of David Storey’s forthcoming book, Naturalizing

Heidegger. (Storey 2015) Without adopting something like Storey’s sophisticated

naturalization, as Hans Jonas and Susan Taubes have argued, Heidegger promotes a kind

of Gnostic acosmism. (Jonas 1952, 1958; Taubes 1954)

Asserting in Being and Time that Being refers to “utter transcendence”

(transcendenz schlechthin), Heidegger intends Being to be understood as “wholly other”

to beings. (Heidegger 1962, 62 [Heidegger 1967b, 38]) Gradually, Heidegger made clear

that the wholly other refers not so much to Being as to the clearing. His discourse about

the wholly other is reminiscent of negative theology, according to which one cannot

describe the utterly transcendent God, but must end by saying neti neti, “Not this, not

that,” as in the Upanishads.13 Heidegger was influenced by Karl Barth’s arguably neo-

Gnostic theology, according to which God so transcends the world that we can say

nothing positive about God without depicting God in terms suitable only for creatures.

Insofar as humans exist within and perhaps even as the clearing/nothingness required for

beings to manifest themselves, the human “essence” transcends the world as well. (The

foregoing comparisons with negative theology are not meant to suggest that Heidegger’s

“clearing” refers to the Biblical God, but rather to note certain non-accidental affinities

between Heidegger’s ontology and negative theology.)

Despite Heidegger’s reservations about evolutionary theory and cosmology, let us

explore for a moment the possibility that the finite human clearing (affectivity,

receptivity, temporality) was somehow associated with a complex set of empirical

conditions that made possible a leap in the hierarchical structure of nature. Another such

leap was made by organic life, which can take into account beings pertinent to an

organism’s survival and development. Could an analogous (even if very different) mode

of finite receptivity or clearing somehow arise by virtue of the empirical conditions

associated with super AI? Moreover, even if it were to arise, how would we ever know

that it did? We are talking about a development, of course, that would far exceed

anything measurable by the Turing Test.

Nevertheless, suppose that humans somehow invent AI that not only successfully

demonstrates its self-consciousness (and by inference its finite receptivity), but also is

vastly more intelligent and in many ways more capable than humans. How might a

techno-posthumanist, who is informed about Heidegger’s critique, assess such a


development? Following Sheehan, she might say that our metaphysical destiny is to

allow self-showing (Being) of beings to occur in ever more profound and complete ways.

Super AI, then, may be both an inevitable and justifiable development. Even if Heidegger

is right that humans are “hexed” by modern technology, we will in any event pursue what

such technology makes possible. Using, understanding, and manipulating beings is the

only game in town for the vast majority of people, including the highly educated. What

Heidegger calls “the self-release of being into machination” calls to mind Christ’s kenosis

(self-emptying), which Hegel interpreted as transcendent God pouring Itself into Creation

as immanent Geist. Far from indicating a decline or something merely negative, then, the

complete self-release of being into the machination of techno-science may in fact be the

real “destiny of Being.”

The technological Singularity associated with super AI may constitute what

Nietzsche would call a redeeming work of art that gives a highest meaning to the efforts

of countless scientists, engineers, investors, sci-fi writers, philosophers, and visionaries.

The growing possibility of the Singularity will elicit ever-greater efforts on the part of

those who want to help to generate this next evolutionary leap. Such people want to

enable such a leap, despite the risks and despite the fact that super AI will leave

humankind behind, because super AI is the biggest possibility lying on the table.

Who will be ready, willing, and able to seize this opportunity? Are those currently

committed to bringing forth super AI up to the challenge of doing so? Here we may recall

Heidegger’s contention that humankind must undergo a transformation if it is to

correspond to what is required by the Will to Will. Some may regard transhumanism as

such a transformation, but that remains to be seen.


A Note About Finitude

Finally, given that this essay began by discussing transhumanist aspirations to

overcome mortality, let me offer a (tentative, speculative, and revisable) concluding word

about finitude. As already noted, Heidegger once indicated that animals are endowed

with limited modes of openness, even if world poor in comparison with humankind.

Contemporary thinking invites us to interpret the human clearing as an evolutionary

cosmic development, rather than as something that arose from nowhere. If another, post-

human mode of openness were to arise within super AI, however, it would not be because

computer scientists would have intended or expected it, given that discourse about

temporal openness is not widespread in the world of AI, despite the efforts of thinkers

like Hubert Dreyfus. (Dreyfus Perhaps taking seriously the notion of affective, finite

openness will be necessary, however, if AI researchers are ever to solve the motivation


What is this problem? Let’s assume that we have managed to produce AI that

proceeds to redesign itself to be virtually immortal, enormously intelligent, and self-

aware. Despite all these capacities, what would motivate such a super AI to do something

now that could be put off for a century or even for a few millennia? In the face of

millions of years, what’s the hurry? Moreover, why would super AI want to do anything

at all on its own at all, unless super AI were somehow to matter to itself? Arguably, for

something to matter to Super AI would mean that it must somehow care for itself and

perhaps for other beings as well. For super AI to be more than an awesome analytic

engine, would its mode of Being not have to include something akin to care, as

Heidegger defined humankind in Being and Time? If so, would super AI need to be finite

and perhaps even mortal?

In his essay “The Thing,” Heidegger underscored the relationship between

mortality and the clearing by saying that “Death is the shrine of Nothing.” (Heidegger

1971, 178-179 [Heidegger 1954c, 51) By “death,” Heidegger means mortality, radical

finitude, the capacity for death as death. This capacity belongs only to humans. The word

“shrine” (Schrein) stems from a word meaning cabinet, chest, or reliquary, and in the

Middle Ages was also used to name the ark (of the Covenant). Hence, mortality sustains

and shelters the Nothing, that is, the clearing without which no being can be. To become

who we really are, according to Heidegger, means to own up to the fact that we are

always already owned by the clearing (Ereignis). Such owning up (authenticity,

Eigentlichkeit), however, requires accepting one’s mortality, finitude, and dependence.

According to Heidegger, then, the goal of super AI amounts to forsaking what makes us


Finite AI would not prove satisfactory to those who crave immortality. Although

Ray Kurzweil wants to transcend mortality, his goal in so doing is not to abandon his

capacity to care for himself, for others, and for the whole of beings. Indeed, his stated

goal is eschatological: to transform the mute universe into that which is conscious. If

Heidegger is right, however, caring cannot be sustained with embracing mortality.

Keeping this judgment in mind, I would agree to meld myself with a non-finite, super AI

only if there were a bail out option available after the fact.

Choosing to bail out, however, would presuppose that I would still care about



From the final scene in the film Transcendent Man: The Life and Times of Ray
Kurzweil. Ptolemy, 2009.
Perhaps the most visible transhumanist promoting life extension is Aubrey de
Grey, co-founder and chief science officer of Sens Research Foundation, whose slogan is
“Reimagining Aging.” See de
Grey, 2008.
Curiously, however, as Jean-Pierre Dupuy has argued, at the same moment
when posthumanism was eliminating human subjectivity and replacing it with the
structuring activity of language and social organization, proponents of cybernetics (which
made techno-posthumanism possible) were also eliminating subjectivity and replacing it
with the universal activity of computation. Cybernetics redefined the human being as a
kind of complex computer, and purged from “meaning” all traces of subjectivity.
Whereas Heidegger conceived of cybernetics as the pinnacle of humanism, now
understood as in the service of the Will to Power, much of 20th century French
philosophy used cybernetics and its social science analogues to undermine humanism,
ending up with the notion of subjectless cognition. See Dupuy 2000, 2011.
There is a significant literature on trans- and techno-posthumanism. Critiques
include Fukuyama 2003; Habermas 2003; Sandel 2009; Joy 2000. Optimistic assessments
include Drexle, 2013; Stock 2002; and Naam 2005.
The Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) has been formed to examine
and to bring to public awareness important aspects of AI, including its potentially
destructive implications for the human future. See
Heidegger’s term Technik is perhaps best translated as technique or technics,
rather than as technology, although the latter term is usually used in translation. Technik
refers to the know-how that lets us make and produce ever more complex things in many
different domains. Technology, on the other hand, refers to our study or investigation of
Technik, just as biology refers to our investigation of life (bios) and ecology refers to our

study of Earth’s household (oikos). Heidegger’s study of the origins of nature of modern
Technik constitutes an important instance of technology, in the way just defined.
Although the relation between Heidegger’s das Nichts and Buddhism’s sunyata
(emptiness) is intriguing, it is also fraught with uncertainty.
For an insightful account of Heidegger’s philosophical appropriation of Luther’s
concept of the fall, see McGrath, 2005.
I was reminded of this passage by Suhail Malik in his commendable essay,
“Nihilism and Life: Cosmobiology and Ontopoiesis in Heidegger’s Nietzsche.” Suhail
2000, 91.
The term “one-dimensional” is from Herbert Marcuse’s influential work, One-
Dimensional Man (1964) Marcuse wrote his dissertation under Heidegger’s direction.
The term “industrial ontology” is from Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything (1996).
Wilber’s work constitutes a major developmental counter-narrative to Heidegger’s
account of Western history.
There is a considerable literature on the role played by esoteric traditions in the
origin and the development of modernity. See Magee 2008; Monod, 2013; Fleming,
2013; Zimmerman 2009. .
Kurzweil 2006 offers a sophisticated discussion of consciousness and problems
in defining it. See also Kurzweil 2012.
Richard Capobianco suggests that “More than this, more than that!” would
better represent Heidegger’s view. Personal communication.


Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler 1998. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Chalmers, David J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory

London and New York: Oxford University Press.

_____________ 2010, The Character of Consciousness. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010)

Cheng, Yinghong 2008. Creating the "New Man": From Enlightenment Ideals to
Socialist Realities. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Davies, Paul 2008. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life?
New York: Mariner Books.

De Grey, 2008. Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs that Could Reverse
Human Aging In Our Lifetime. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Drexler, Eric K. 2013. Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology Will

Change Civilization. New York: PublicAffairs.

Dreyfus, Hubert 1988. “Why Heideggerian AI failed and why fixing it would require
making it more Heideggerian.” Philosophical Psychology, 20 (2), 247–68.

Dupuy, Jean-Pierre, 2000. “The Self-Mechanized Mind,” in Dupuy and M. B.

DeBevoise, The Mechanization of Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dupuy, Jean-Pierre, 2011. “H-: Cybernetics is an Antihumanism: Advanced

Technologies and the Rebellion Against the Human Condition.” Metanexus, September

Flanagan, Owen 1993. Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge: Bradford Books/MIT


Fleming, John V. 2013. The Dark Side of the Enlightenment: Wizards, Alchemists, and
Spiritual Seekers in the Age of Reason. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Fukuyama, Francis 2003. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnological

Revolution. New York: Picador.

Geraci, Robert M. 2010. Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in Robotics, Artificial

Intelligence, and Virtual Reality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Habermas, Jürgen 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hawking, Steven, Max Tegmark, Stuart Russell, and Frank Wilczek 2014. “Transcending
Complacency about Superintelligent Machines,”

Heidegger, Martin 1954a. “Die Frage nach der Technik.” Vorträge und Aufsätze, Teil I.
Pfullingen: Günther Neske, 5-36.

___________ 1954b. “Überwindung der Metaphysik,” Vorträge und Aufsätze, Teil I.

Pfullingen: Günter Neske, 63-91.

___________ 1954c. “Das Ding.” Vorträge und Aufsätze, Teil II. Verlag Günther Neske:
Pfullingen, 1954), 51.

___________ 1962. Being and Time, transl. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.
New York: Harper & Row.

____________1967a. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.


___________1967b. Wegmarken, “Brief über den ‘Humanismus,” Frankfurt am Main:

Vittorio Klostermann.

___________ 1971. “The Thing,” trans. Albert Hofstader in Poetry, Language, Thought.
New York: Harper & Row. 178-179.

___________ 1972. “Overcoming Metaphysics,” in The End of Philosophy, trans. Joan

Stambaugh. New York: Harper & Row Martin

_________1977a., “Letter on Humanism,” in Basic Writings transl. David Farrell Krell.

New York: Harper & Row.

_________ 1977b. “The Question Concerning Technology,” trans. William Lovitt in

Basic Writings, New York: Harper & Row.

__________ 1983. Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik. Welt--Endlichkeit--Einsamkeit,

Gesamtausgabe Vol. 29/30, ed. F.-W. von Herrmann. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio

__________ 1987. The Will to Power as Knowledge, Volume III Nietzsche, trans. Joan
Stambaugh, David Farrell Krell, and Frank A. Capuzzi. HarperSanFrancisco.

___________1989a. Nietzsches Lehre vom Willen zur Macht als Erkenntnis (Summer
semester 1939), ed. E. Hanser, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 47. Frankfurt am Main: Vittoria

___________ 1989b. Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), ed. Friedrich-Wilhelm

von Hermann. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

_____________ 1995. Fundamental Problems of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude,

trans. William McNeill and Nicholas Walker. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

__________ 2000. Reden und andere Zeugnisse eines Lebensweges (1910–1976), ed.
Hermann Heidegger, Gesamtausgabe Vol. 16. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann,

___________ 2004. Zu Ernst Jünger "Der Arbeiter", ed. P. Trawny, Gestamtausgabe,

Vol. 90. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

__________ 2010. “On the Question Concerning the Determination of the Matter for
Thinking,” trans. Richard Capobianco and Maria Göbel, Epoche, Vol. 14, Issue 2
(Spring), 213-233.

___________2012. Contributions to Philosophy, trans. Richard Rojcewicz and Daniela

Vallega-Neu. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Jonas, Hans 1958. “Gnosticism, Nihilism, and Existentialism” appendix to The Gnostic
Religion. Boston: Beacon Press.

Jonas, Hans 1952. “Gnosticism and Modern Nihilism.” åååSocial Research, Volume 19,
Number 4 (December), 430-452.

Joy, Bill 2000. “Why the future doesn’t need us.” Wired, Issue 8.04.

Jünger, Ernst 2013 [1932]. Der Arbeiter: Herrschaft und Gestalt. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta-

Kurzweil, Ray, 2006. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New
York: Penguin.

Kurzweil, Ray 2012. How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed.
New York: Viking.

Lanier, Jaron 2010. “The First Church of Robotics,” The New York Times, August 9,

Lazier, Benjamin 2012. God Interrupted: Heresy and the European Imagination between
the World Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Magee, Glenn 2008. Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Malik, Suhail 2000. Nihilism Now! Monsters of Energy, eds. Keith Ansell-Pearson and
Diane Morgan. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Malykhina, Elena 2014. “New DARPA office Merges Biology and Technology,”
Information Week, Government April 2.

Marcuse, Herbert, 1964. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.

McGrath, S.J. 2005. “The Facticity of Being Godforsaken: The Young Heidegger’s
Accommodation of Luther’s Theology of the Cross.” American Catholic Philosophical
Quarterly, 79, No. 2, 273-290.

Monod, Paul Kleber 2013. Solomon's Secret Arts: The Occult in the Age of
Enlightenment. New Haven: Yale University Press.

McIntosh, Steve 2012. Evolution’s Purpose. New York: Select Books.


Naam, Ramez 2005. More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological
Enhancement. New York: Broadway Books.

Nietzsche, Friedrich 1974. The Gay Science, trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York:
Vintage Press.

Polt, Richard 2104. “A Heideggerian Critique of Cyberbeing” in The Horizons of

Authenticity, eds. Hans Pedersen and Megan Altman. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ptolemy, Barry 2009. Transcendent Man: The Life and Times of Ray Kurzweil Ptolemaic

Rosenblum, Bruce and Fred Kuttner 2011. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters
Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Rosenthal, Bernice Glatzer 2002. New Myth, New Worlds: From Nietzsche to Stalinism.
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sandel, Michael J., 2009. The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic
Engineering.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Sheehan, Thomas, 1998. “Nihilism: Heidegger/Jünger/Aristotle,”in Phenomenology:

Japanese and American Perspectives, edited by Burt C. Hopkins. Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 273-316.

__________ 2002. “Nihilism and Its Discontents,” in Heidegger and Practical

Philosophy, ed. Francois Raffoul and David Pettigrew. Albany: SUNY Press, 275-300.

__________ 2014. Making Sense of Heidegger. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Stiegler, Bernard 1998. Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus, trans. Richard
Beardsworth and George Collins. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

_____________ 2009. Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation, trans. Stephen Barker.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

_____________ 2010. Technics and Time, 3: Cinematic Time and the Question of
Malaise, trans. Stephen Barker. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Stock, Gregory 2002. Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.

Storey, David 2015. Naturalizing Heidegger: His Confrontation with Nietzsche, His
Contributions to Environmental Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.

Swimme, Brian Thomas and Mary Evelyn Tucker 2011. Journey of the Universe. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Taubes, Susan Anima 1954. “The Gnostic Foundation of Heidegger’s Nihilism.” The
Journal of Religion, Volume XXIV, Number 3 (July), 155-172.

Wilber, Ken 1995. A Brief History of Everything. Boston: Shambhala.

Zimmerman, Michael E. 1990. Heidegger’s Confrontation with Modernity: Technology,

Politics, Art. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

_____________, 2008. “The Singularity: A Crucial Phase in Divine Self-Actualization?”

Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Vol. 4, Nos. 1-2,

_____________ 2009. “Religious Motifs in Technological Posthumanism,” Western

Humanities Review, special issue on Nature, Culture, Technology, ed. Anne-Marie
Feenberg-Dibon and Reginald McGinnis, Vol. LXIII, No. 3 (Fall), 67-83.

___________ 2011.“Last Man or Overman? Transhuman Appropriations of a

Nietzschean Theme,” The Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary
Culture, Volume 13, No. 2 (Summer), 31-44.